________________
SEPTEMBER, 1915)
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY
197
(No. 110 of 1900). The date perfectly corresponds to 25 June A. D. 1278. But, since the day of the solar month is not quoted, precisely the same combination of details would be reproduced in a year perhaps 30 or 35 years distant from A. D. 1278. If careful palæographic examination results in a declaration that it probably belongs to that year the fixture may be accepted. If accepted we have a new king whose reign began between 26 June 1257 and 25 June 1258 A, D. Is this confirmed by the other records quoted ?
(No. 589 of 1904). The text here specifies the 5th sukla tithi of Simha, Wednesday with the moon in Kritika. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai fixes the day as "probably " 3 September 1292, which would fall in the given 35th regnal year. But to do this he has to make two emendations, reading the " 5th krishna tithi of Kanya " instead of the " 5th śukla tithi of Simha." This is rather too sweeping for the situation. It is not as if this were a date proposed as confirmatory of the reigi of king whose existence has already been conclusively established. To establish the existence and date of accession of a king hitherto unknown we must not rely upon imperfect or incorrectly stated inscription-dates.
(The Predukcôla inscription). 35th regnal year. The text mentions the solar month Kanya, the 15th sukla or paurvami tithi, Monday, with the moon in Rêvati. Mr. Swami. kannu Pillai decides that this corresponds to Monday, 10th September A.D. 1291. The date however is imperfect, as the author admits. That Monday would have been coupled with Uttara Bhadrapadâ, in which nakshatra the moon stood at sunrise. The moon entered Rêvati only a little before sunset. I can trace no reason for departure in this case from the usual custom of naming the day, as before stated this inscription has apparently not as yot been examined by the epigraphical expert.
Neither of these two last dates are satisfactory, and therefore, if we are to build up our history on a solid foundation, it must be held that the first one stands alone. The correct course to adopt is not to insist on the existence of this king on the strength of this meagre evidence, but to pronounce his existence possible and await confirmation. In his Annual Report for 1907, $ 26, the Epigraphist mentions a fragmentary inscription of a Srivallabha (No. 456 of 1906), which it would be well to examine, but as he gives no date for this record it may belong to a different period altogether.
Maravarman Kulabekhara I. (Accession fixed by Kielhorn 2-27 June A. D. 1268.
Doubtful period reduced subsequently to 10-27 June.) This king is already well-known. Kielhorn established his accession-period as 2-27 Juno A. D. 1268. I was able (Epig: Ind: X, p. 141) to reduce this to 10-27 June. I do not know why Mr. Swamikannu Pillai gives it on p. 171 as" 12 May to 27 June." In the List which he gives on p. 165 he states the earliest day as not 12 May but 12 June, and gives this as his own discovery, marking it with an asterisk. But none of the dates which he publishes affords any warrant for this change, nor does not any inscription with which I an acquainted.
(No. 598 of 1902). The given date appears to me intrinsically wrong, for a 2nd sukla tithi cannot in any circumstances, I think, be connected with a noon in Anuradha during the solar month Kanya. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai states that the coincidence can take place in unusual circumstances; he may be right, but I should like an explanation. During the month Kanya the sun's true longitude must be between 150° and 180° During a 2nd sukla tithi the moon's distance from the sun must be between 12 and 24o. Hence the least possible true longitude of the moon during that tithi in Kanya must be
